He's only 23 and rode the stage dumb IMO. If he'd have shadowed Froome, then I think he could have won. His potential problem, like with most pure climbers, is the TT. But he's got plenty of time to improve.

not calling him dumb, but i have no idea why he agreed to take pulls. Unless quintana really thought he was a GC threat. I would have said to froome, 'sorry , but im in it for the stage win'. Then froome would have probably 'not attacked' and got the stage win anyways, but i was like confused.

also neive dropped contador , i was like dang bertie.

also cadel being dropped before things even got serious, i was like dang cadel

not calling him dumb, but i have no idea why he agreed to take pulls. Unless quintana really thought he was a GC threat. I would have said to froome, 'sorry , but im in it for the stage win'. Then froome would have probably 'not attacked' and got the stage win anyways, but i was like confused.

Confused by Team Movistar-Sky?

KB wrote:

Also, if we're talking about riders doing nada and then winning the Tour, perhaps you should look at Indurain; took him a lot of goes before he won it. Very few riders win the Tour at their first attempt, and the one's that do are the greats.

I wouldn't hold up Indurain as some clean saint. His closet is probably as dirty as the rest. Especially if you believe Donati's, Thomas Davy's and Nijboer's claims. Banesto was just as dirty as any other team. So don't use Indurain as your example.

Last edited by 53x12 on Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

53 x 12 - I never said Indurain was clean, but then everyone else was on the juice, which suggests it was pretty much equal. So, he's as good an example as anyone else, especially given what went before and after him. My comment was in the context of who actually wins the Tour at their first go.

LeMond was supportive of Froome, but noted he had a "weird position" on the bike

"There is a difference between a climber like Hinault for example, and Froome speeding away like that," the 52-year-old explained. "People look at technology now, wattage, VO2max and nobody is equal physically. You can't compare it to before. I don't like it when people ask me questions like that and I want to believe in what I'm seeing. There can be spectacular performances without doping."

--cyclingnews

_________________I never took drugs to improve my performance at any time. I will be willing to stick my finger into a polygraph test if anyone with big media pull wants to take issue. If you buy a signed poster now it will not be tarnished later. --Graeme Obree

Forgive me if anyone asked already, this thread is moving fast. Was there any fallout from the Sky riders getting musett bags at the 10k to go mark? I wasn't sure if it was legal or not at that point in the stage.

You started off with stating "You can't road race by numbers, but its cute people think that. Go do some actual races and try it."

Then go about stating: "get really good at climbing at a steady output and time trialling at a steady output for stage races."

And how do you measure that steady output during the race?The whole reason the head-units are banned in track is to avoid the ability of a racer to go by... yes.... "steady output"

And even in last year's Tour we head video interviews with non-Sky racers who referred to reading power-outputs during the stages and, to paraphrase a Chris Horner quote (from one of the interviews) - "They were just putting out a steady 420w the whole climb!" (something like that)So... yeah, even other racers are citing riding by the numbers.

Let me re-phrase.

In this and last year's Tour you have to be good at steady state climbing right? But your wattage, bet it 350 or 420, is irrelevant if you aren't used the effort, have poor pacing, aren't used to doing exactly that on climbs, and it isn't fast enough to suffocate your rivals. Remember that if Froome is 3rd wheel, he's not riding at threshold nor is he really caring about riding at it as its not his job at that moment. So I meant more in terms of getting him used to the steps in pacing, attacking from it and returning to it, etc. There are a ton of qualitative aspects that you still need as a rider. Talansky is a great example from Paris Nice.

Really? So because he knows numbers means he's riding to them? So what if its 420? What if, for Horner, that is only 90% of his threshold when adjusted for weight? Does Horner then adjust his riding to ride at his threshold as well? The whole notion of just setting one pace on a powermeter and controlling the race is a bit ridiculous. Clearly you do not road race. Hell, I have a higher threshold w/kg than one of my teammates, but he climbs better in races simply because he can punch and recover at threshold (his threshold is 15w lower and p/w is about .3kg lower than mine). Unless its a really long climb where I can continually reel him it only takes a few digs for him to put in a gap and if he does it right its too big to hold. I can sit there and stare at my head unit all I want, but it won't help. It also doesn't help when I try to suffocate him on a longer climb. There is a dynamic that might be slightly hard to explain, but you can't just find a number and ride by it.

Also, if you have ever done an actual TT on a non pan flat course you can't just stick a wattage. If you could you'd see a lot more negative splits on out and back courses.

When riders, like Horner, read comments about power they're stating (in this example) that it is very high and they're surprised at it. How you then read "Sky raced at exactly 420w because that is what they trained to do and that was their entire game plan on every climbing race in every race ever" baffles me.

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum